1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, except for the case's "3. Judgment" in the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the court below]

3. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the defendant Eul submitted a reply to the purport that since the MAC address of the PP Ad Capital was made of microfit from the microfit to PPP access, it is not managed in the PE. The Korean Microfrate limited company sent a reply to the purport that the matters concerning the physical address of the PPP Ad Capital are matters related to the network provided by the Internet service supplier (the defendant case, etc.) and the universal address of the world is the only address of the world used by each manufacturer after receiving the PEE, and if the MAC address is not used in the PE, it can be acknowledged that each manufacturer is not arbitrarily created the fact that the PE is not used in the PE.

However, solely based on the circumstance that there is a difference between the Internet service provider and the operator of the operating system with respect to the MAC management entity of the PPP Ad Capital, it is difficult to deem that the different part of the reply to the fact inquiry in this case is not true. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that there is a direct relation to the assertion that the non-resident had access to the Plaintiff’s computer. ② The Plaintiff, like the Plaintiff, did not prove that the access program necessary for access to the Internet is not granted separately from the MAC’s physical universal address of the LN card installed on the Plaintiff’s computer.